ecoli Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 you have to realize that there are crazy zionists out there that want to get rid of the islamic population in palestine. Oh yes, I have...and it frightens me just as much as the palestinian extremists. Luckily, thses people are not in political power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 Perhaps you have definitive proof that the Israeli's would never use their nukes? No, of course not. However, I can tell you that Israel was close to using it's nukes beforehand. Back in the 70's Israel was almost completely surrounded by enemy forces, they were considering using nuclear weapons as the last option. Luckily it didn't come down to that. Israel would only use it's nuclear weapons as a last and final resort. I hope that it would never come down to that. That, if Israel was ever in a position where it needed to use nukes, the rest of the world would step in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 "Luckily, thses people are not in political power." the likud party? they're the unofficial zionist overly represented minority, swayed by influence in the united states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 the likud party? they're the unofficial zionist overly represented minority' date=' swayed by influence in the united states[/quote'] Overrepresented? Yes. Complete representation? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted March 26, 2005 Author Share Posted March 26, 2005 Oh yes, I have...and it frightens me just as much as the palestinian extremists. Luckily, thses people are not in political power. Neither are any Palestinian extremists. Or perhaps you can name a few? And as budullewraagh pointed out, there is definitely a minority of religious extremists in the Israeli government. If there are any hardliners in the Palestinian authority, they represent a VERY small fraction of the leadership. The fact that most Palestinians voted Abbas in, as opposed to his main rival, Barghouti, says something for what the Palestinians really want. To me it says that they're sending out a message saying that the intifada is getting them no closer to peace and stability, and that violent means of any sort are only hurting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted March 26, 2005 Author Share Posted March 26, 2005 I just found this article on BBC, and it melted me heart... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4376445.stm Mid-East peace song to be released Palestinian radio is set to broadcast a song in Hebrew for the first time, as Israeli Army radio simultaneously plays an Arabic version of the same track. The song, In My Heart, by Israeli David Broza and Palestinian Wisam Murad is due to be played on Sunday. Mr Broza's spokesman said both artists were encouraged to broadcast the song by last month's Sharm el-Sheikh summit. The two singers say they hope the track will narrow the divisions between their communities. "It's about love and peace and we are not against peace," said Voice of Palestine director Bassem Abu Sumaya. "We echo the political environment," he added. "If there's violence, we cover the facts on the ground. If it's quiet, we can air recreational programmes and songs." 'Pain and Anger' David Broza is famous in Israel for his folk and rock songs and one of his tracks has already become popular with the Israeli peace movement. Wisam Murad is known internationally as a member of the group Sabreen, whose songs reflect the problems of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The lyrics was written two years ago - at the height of the Palestinian uprising or intifada - by Broza and Wisam Murad's brother, Said, also a member of Sabreen. "If Said and I could sit when chaos, bombs and havoc were all around us and could write about love, then others can," Broza told the Reuters News Agency. "After all the pain and anger, something sweet can come out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 "Overrepresented? Yes. Complete representation? No." of course, but it's not like the others are significant parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 By expanding existing settlements' date=' one would assume that they're expanding upon land they've [i']already[/i] taken. Israel has a much smaller landmass than most states in the US, and land isn't in abundance over there (hence why the Palestinians and Jews are fighting over a strip of land smaller than the stae of New Jersey?). It's not like they can simply kick Palestinians out of their homes and take their land without major pr concerns. I assume they'll simply move many more settlers in, as that's how they generally "expand" the settlements. You're making a lot of assumptions there. If you check the facts rather than rely on those lovely assumptions you will find out that Israel does have a habit of 'simply kick (sic) Palestinians out of their homes'. Israel has a clear track record of taking land owned/occupied by Palestinians for its own purposes. It takes agricultural land and houses as and when it feels justified in doing so, regardless of the opinions of 'pr' concerns. Excuse me. Most people only use a term like "historic" when they're talking about things that have been happening for at least hundreds of years (or hell' date=' outside of the past couple [i']centuries[/i])? So according to you WW2 is not a historic event. WW1 is not part of history. Actually, according to convention, events that took place more than 20 years ago can be considered historic. When i am refering to events such as the Balfour declaration in 1917 the word 'historic' is clearly applicable. I definitely read and understood your post. I just thoroughly disagree with your assertions that more Israeli's = more security. Perhaps you should give some reason for your disagreement. As it is clearly apparent that more Israelis does in fact mean that Israel would be stronger. More Israelis mean a larger economy' date=' more taxes, more soldiers, more scientists, more brains. A nation is made up of its people. I think the best way for the Israeli's AND Palestinian's to ensure their security is through the peace process. That means both sides must be willing to compromise/make concessions. 'Peace process'. Nice words. But words aren't good enough. It's facts on the ground which determine reality. The only reason that a 'peace process' is in existence at all is because the Israelis were able to fend off repeated attacks with brute force. If it wasn't for the military strength of Israel there would be no peace process. Peace can only come through security and that means guns. First, the notion of any Middle Eastern nations acquiring nukes is so incredibly detatched from reality (Geez, we saw what happened the last time an Arab country was assumed to have WMD) that it's hardly worth entertaining the thought. 'Incredibly detached from reality'? Perhaps you should watch the news or read a newspaper or current affairs magazine at some point. Ever heard of Iran? It's got a highly active nuclear programme. Europe, the USA, Russia, the UN, they are all worried that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But you know better? Isn't this the stated objective of all nuclear powers? So you're agreeing with me. Israel does want to find other ways to secure its existence other than purely relying on nuclear deterence. Ergo' date=' its settlements policy. Conjectures are definitively your strong point, are they not? Perhaps you would like to direct me to somewhere where I've even implied that I think this could be the case? Actually, if you check my posts you will find that my points have been supported by reason and fact. Your statement that Israel did not need to take any additional action to safeguard its security as it could solely rely on its nuclear deterent was a clear implication that in certain circumstances Israel would use those weapons. Your logic that therefore Israel did not need to make any other safeguards would leave Israel with nuclear war as its one and only option for defence. An insane position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 of course' date=' but it's not like the others are significant parties[/quote'] Just a side note - If you're curious here's a list of Political Parties in Israel...There's more then I expected. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/partytoc.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 do you know how many parties there are in the us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Oh, hundreds I'm sure... But then...that's expected, the US is quite bigger then Israel, population and landmass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 that wasnt my point. sure, there are many parties in israel, but the likud party is an overrepresented minority and there is not significant representation of the other parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 that wasnt my point. sure, there are many parties in israel, but the likud party is an overrepresented minority and there is not significant representation of the other parties Oh...sorry. What do you mean by overrepresented minority? Can you provide some figures, on the Likud party that demonstates this? Israel is a democracy, similiar to us... how could a single party gain so much power if the minority of the people agree to what they represent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 think of what the republican party has done in the us. and they didn't have foreign influence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 that wasnt my point. sure, there are many parties in israel, but the likud party is an overrepresented minority and there is not significant representation of the other parties On a point of fact your are incorrect. Israels electoral system works by proportional representantion. Each party is represented in the Knesset to the exact degree of the support recieved in the general election. It is impossible for Likud, or any other party, to be overrepresented. To state that other parties are not significantly represented is also wrong. Likud has 38 seats out of a total of 120 seats in the Knesset. Other parties have 82 seats. To state that 82 seats out of 120 means that 'there is not significant representation of the other parties' is simply wrong. To recap. Likud is not over represented and other parties are significantly represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 think of what the republican party has done in the us. and they didn't have foreign influence I know that George Bush won the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 To recap. Likud is not over represented and other parties are significantly represented. Thanks Aardvark... I suspected this might be true. BTW, where did you get this info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 It's all public information. I checked CNN the BBC and then confirmed the details at the Israeli ministry of Foreign affairs website. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Historic%20Events/Results%20of%20Elections%20to%20the%2016th%20Knesset%20-%20Jan%2028- As we are looking at clear objective facts it is not possible to accuse the sources of bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Oh no... I wasn't accusing you of anything... I was curious, as I wanted this information for my own records. Thank you and sorry for the misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Oh no... I wasn't accusing you of anything... I was curious, as I wanted this information for my own records. Thank you and sorry for the misunderstanding. Sorry, being a little over defensive there. Glad to help with the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 " I know that George Bush won the popular vote." i was referring to 2000, mind you "Israels electoral system works by proportional representantion. Each party is represented in the Knesset to the exact degree of the support recieved in the general election. It is impossible for Likud, or any other party, to be overrepresented. To state that other parties are not significantly represented is also wrong. Likud has 38 seats out of a total of 120 seats in the Knesset. Other parties have 82 seats. To state that 82 seats out of 120 means that 'there is not significant representation of the other parties' is simply wrong." right; they don't have much representation in the knesset, but they control the executive branch. you just disproved your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 i was referring to 2000' date=' mind you[/quote'] Well...thanks for specifying. right; they don't have much representation in the knesset' date=' but they control the executive branch. you just disproved your point[/quote'] If they have power, they were voted into it. That means they are not overrepresented. It's what the majority of the people wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 right; they don't have much representation in the knesset' date=' but they control the executive branch. you just disproved your point[/quote'] You don't seem to understand how the Israeli political system works. The Prime Minister is choosen by a direct national vote. The Likud candidate won by a clear majority with over 60% of the vote. However, in order to actually form a government he must turn to the Knesset. Here Likud does not have a majority so the government has to be a coalition. Likud is part of the government, it is not the government, it is not able to take any actions without the support of a majority in the Knesset, which means the other parties have a veto. The Israeli political system actually gives a great deal of power and influence to the smaller parties. In most other democracies a party with Likuds share of the vote would have much more power. By international standards Likud is much less influential or powerful than would be normal. A quick look at the realities of Israeli politics will quickly demonstrate that Likud does not, in fact, have any disproportinate representation, power or influence, but is actually highly constrained and circumvented by the other parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxhead Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 I'm not sure this is the right forum' date=' so if I placed it in the wrong one, let me know. Just curious on everyones thoughts about this. Things were starting to look up for the peace process, but now I fear that things will erupt once more. Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4367787.stm that is not politics that is a religious war of new world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Religion is inescapable from politics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now